Aircraft flies next sector after tailstrike
 

While visiting my maintanance hangar at Bratislava-Stefanik recently, I saw a rather forlorn Slovak Airlines 737 parked next to the hangar with a big scrape down the tail underside and two full holes in the fuselage that you could put your fist through.

It would appear that this tailstrike occured on landing a charter at Corfu. The crew then decided to return to Bratislava, with an aircraft full of tourists, fortunately with no adverse effects.

Good decision :confused:

thanks for the info, but which aircraft are you referring to ?

Air Slovakia
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1109435/M/

or Slovak Airlines
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1100339/M/

If it had two holes as you discribe how did it they get the cabin to pressuerise?

Aft of the pressure bulkhead I would assume however there is still no excuse for this as They would not have known after rotation where the damage(if indeed any had occured) was.:=

never ceases to amaze....:ugh:

Readywhen It was Slovak Airlines

A+C Matkat was right it was after the bulkhead.

Matkat They knew what the damage was, as they had the tailstrike by flaring too aggressively on landing, inspected the aircraft and decided to fly home with their passengers.

I understand that there is a criminal investigation underway.

I understand that there is a criminal investigation underway.
----------------------------------------------------------
So there bloody well should be!

Remember the Japan Airlines B747 that had a repair job done after a tailstrike, then a few years later the tail literally fell off in flight with a resultant hull loss, all but 4 on board died.

The Slovak crew should have their licenses revoked.. Incompetent crew putting peoples lives at risk!

Are you absolutely certain about that? - my recollection from the time is of either one or four survivors.

Four survivors from the JL.

But there was another serious 747 accident from a bad tailstrike repair more recently: CI in 2002. The aircraft broke up near cruising altitude; nobody had a chance.

A few years ago, Midland scraped the tail of a 321 on landing in Dublin. Nobody appeared to see that the aircraft was holed and they turned the airplane around, filled it with passengers and flew it back to LHR.

After takeoff from Dublin the aircraft wouldn't pressurise properly due to the gaping hole in the fuselage. So the crew descended and continued back to LHR at a much lower level, partially pressurised.

Despite a heavy, bounced landing, with a high pitch attitude, captain's intervention on the second toutchdown; cabin crew reports of "clanking" in the rear galley area, neither of the cockpit crew went out to see if anything was wrong. When does the penny drop with some people?

One can only wonder.:ugh:

just reading the report on the China air crash, where was the repair to the tailstrike damage done? and why are some reputible airlines in such a rush to have all their maint done there??

A330 Busdriver
 

You need to also point out that a walkround was performed by a contracted engineer at DUBLIN and he signed the tech log for the pre departure inspection, also releasing the AC for service. After this incident procedures were changed.

The JAL accident IIRC was caused because the boeing engineers who repaired the aft pressure bulkhead used only one line of rivets instead of two & the pressurisation cycles led to stress cracking & eventual explosive decompression which ruptured all the hydraulic systems thus crippling the crews ability to fly the airplane.

Worst of all, the plane flew on for a while & in the wreckage, the rescuers found all kinds of final notes for loved ones that the pax had time to write in the certain knowledge they were about to die. A horrible crash that one.

Fadec,
Yes, that is true, and I know that BMI crew now do a exterior preflight like everyone else.

However, what concerns me is that a crew can have a such a sequence of events - a bounced landing, a high pitch attitude on the second with the captain taking over control, after which the possibility of a heavy landing was discussed along with unusual noises reported by the cabin crew; subsequently followed by the aircraft failing to pressurise properly, and not realise that something was seriously wrong.

One glance at the PRESS page - would show that both bleeds and both packs were operating normally and that all the outflow valves were fully closed. Coupled with a loud "whooshing noise" reported by the cabin crew, I just wonder how much it takes for some people to put together all these clues and realise that something is seriously wrong.

granted, but
 

they probably realised something was wrong. Its what happened afterwards that you take exception with. I guess your point is that you are not happy with them continuing to LHR rather than return to DUB.?

Fadec,

yes - During the climbout, in the Dublin CTA they were faced with all this, descended, yet pressed on to the destination.

It is obvious from the report that some additional structural failure occured during the climbout - just imagine if the damage had been as severe as in the Japanese case.

Leaving the environment of an airport close by and pressing on, shows either a lack of appreciation of the situation they were in, or a gross disregard for the safety of those on board. Given that the commander was reasonably experienced I very much doubt the latter.

Despite having lost practically all of the vertical fin and with zero hydraulics Captain Takahama (a JAL 20 year veteran) and his crew managed keep the crippled 747 airborne for some 30 minutes by using engine power alone to control the aircraft.

Perhaps even more disconcerting is the fact that the aircraft flew on for 7 years after the completion of the improper repair. The then-president of JAL resigned his post shortly afterwards and JAL, also staying true to traditional Japanese values, later admitted warning signs that something was amiss with the aft area of that aircraft were ignored. Various JAL flight/cabin crew had reported 'whistling sounds' emanating from the tailcone for several years prior to the loss of flight 123, but no detailed maintenance follow ups on the tail section were ever performed.

The repair ,had it been correctly accomplished should have lasted 10,000 cycles by Boeing estimates. According to records, the JAL 747 was already 2,000 cycles beyond that figure.

How about the China Eastern (I believe) at LHR about a year ago...tailscrape during take off, seen by other aircraft and ATC I belive, debris on runway...still they continued......another airline to avoid...

I *think* that the 10,000 cycle calculation took the improper repair into account and that a correctly repaired bulkhead would have lasted the natural life of the airframe. Also, if I remember correctly, once the bulkhead patches were in place it was difficult to see from the front that the splice only had one rivet line taking the strain and it wasn't until you saw it from the back that it became obvious. Amplifying the tragedy was that the Boeing engineer responsible for supervising the repair later took his own life, as did several JAL employees.

And yes, this was the first known incident where steering by thrust was attempted. Unfortunately the loss of the vertical stabiliser in this case (as opposed to UAL232 and DHL, where the empennage remained intact) made control practically impossible.

As for the original subject of the thread, I wonder if revisiting the aforementioned incidents in training, including that of ground crew would help sharpen focus on the seriousness of preflight checks?